Nathan Milford

Just FYI... to make the lens more salable and relevant to many people in this forum, you can have an Aaton mount mounted on this lens...

Since the camera is from one of our competitors/friends I'm going to stop publicly speculating. It is such an odd symptom and it is hard to come up with a mechanical cause for it. And a human cause would show outright incompetance... both situations are highly unlikely... but in the end you still have missing footage... You can give me a call anytime this week... but after Friday I'll be gone and you'd be better off calling Girvan or Jordan in our LA office. Calling Aaton in France might be a good way to go as well, call before noon NY-time. Pierre usually sticks around until that time.

I'm assuming you didn't rent the camera from Abel or I would have heard. If it is a private owner's camera, bring it by the office before Friday and I'll give it quick once over. After Friday I can't promise anything as it's my last day. Moving one to other things >8) I can only imagine that there is a problem with the pulldown on the camera... but it would have been so loud you couldn't help but notice... Internally the A-Minima is such a simple little beastie... the only way to get the results you describe would be a series of pretty unlikely events 1) Some scenes were randomly shot with the lens cap on... unlikely to the point of absurdity. 2) The claw was bent to the extent that it teetered between pulling the film down and not. Not unlikely on older cameras with the brownish aluminum claws. Impossible on newer cameras with black anodized claws with steel claw tips. Either way the film might get chewed up or fill the film chamber up with spaghetti. 3) The teflon post, linear cam or spring assembly next to and on the claw is somehow out of whack. If the teflon post is warped it may make the claw occasionally run out of the groove carved for it on the linear cam. Similarly if the spring tension is too low (spec is 60 gr.) the claw might not stay in the groove. If the claw pops the cam it might not engage the perfs. Possible in theory... never seen it. Also it might chew up the film and make spaghetti. 4) The c-clip that holds the claw on the crankshaft/post is missing or backed off too much, also causing the claw to ride out of it's groove on the cam. While it should have some play and the c-clip shouldn't be forced up against the claw, it should be completely off. Same result and likelihood as before. 5) Perhaps the loop lost to the extent the film is pulled out of the gate but didn't catch elsewhere in the film chamber it could have ran film, but not in the gate... again, unlikely. Did the lab report scratches or tearing? I cant really imagine any of these really occurring... the owner should obviously have the camera evaluated... but it may just be loader error...

I'm sure he's referring to the fact that the shell of the camera floats on a rubber gasket. The mount is attached to the chassis, but the shell can move and float around a bit on the chassis by a few millimeters. This generally gives the appearance of the mount being loose (when viewed in reference to the shell), but in all actuality it is firmly attached to the mount spider, which is attached to the gate... there is enough step-gasket to prevent light leaks if you hang a heavy lens off of it and you will not suffer any focus problems. As for loading, granted, it is an intellectual leap, but it is absolutely easy, once you get the hang of it. I can load it in under a minute. Perhaps you loading delays would have been shortened by employing an assistant more experienced with the camera. I have made comments elsewhere on this forum about my disappointment in the viewfinder... but they had to make a manufacturing decision that kept the camera from costing more than they wanted it too. A new A-Minima body goes for less than $20,000. While not a perfect camera, IMHO, it isn't meant to be one. It is not a general purpose camera but one meant for special circumstances. When size, cost or ruggedness are a factor... the A-Minima is your camera. Otherwise, rent an Xtera or 416.

One of the major design goals was to make the camera inexpensive. Popping an indecent meter on the side is much cheaper and requires less engineering resources. Installing a TTL meter would require all sorts of jiggering of the mount spider among other things. I suspect it is for this reason that they didn't install a more orientable viewfinder and mechanical magazine footage counters... two features I would dearly love.

It's an incident meter. The diffuser is not removable and it outputs the aperture given that the ASA is programmed properly in the camera. It is located near the rear of the camera next to the LCD. The readings are as accurate as any other properly calibrated light meter. I think it's cute. While I typically use my sekonic or spectra... it has come in handy every once in a while.

I generally callibrate the lens to the adapter to the camera mount. I set the flange on the camera properly, then I shim the lenses to work properly on the adapter mount and lastly I set screen focus to match film focus. It really isn't a problem and I think people's fears about adapter mounts are typically overblown. I shim the lenses just because I'm obsessive compulsive, but they'd look fine on any other camera or adapter assuming everything is within spec... I just like absolute precision when it is attainable, but there is enough fudge room. Zeiss quotes something like +20 to -20 microns as tolerance for the superspeeds and I've never seen an Aaton or ARRI PL adapter out more than 5 microns... The real problem is when a tech will set the flange or back focus arbitrarily to just work as a closed system instead of using proper tools to set everything to the accepted standard specs. I am shocked every time I hear of a rental or repair facility that doesn't use a modern collimator and instead sets the lenses to the camera. Some places will making everything plus or minus so everything matches in the set (camera and lenses) making a closed system. It causes problems when you use the lenses on a foreign camera body or foreign lenses on the set body. Long story short, you ought to be able to slap the adapter on with no problems assuming your lenses and flange are set properly in the first place.

Buddy is a remarkable talent... but it helps to have John Dowdell do your DI. >8)

I'll vouch for Rob... they do good work.

A 172.8º shutter makes a 1/50s exposure at 24fps, mitigating flicker in 50hz systems 172.8º fixed shutter is standard on A-Minimas (except really early ones) and is a typical setting on any variable shutter system.

Howard the Duck! *cringe*

The format's previous death was due (among other things) to the generational loss to optically blow it up to a scope print. The stocks weren't as fine then, and then you're blowing it up to optically squeeze it onto a 4p frame. The resurgence of interest in the format is due to the lowering costs and increasing availability of digital intermediate services. I don't see 2p and S16 directly completing. They're two different tools. 2p, I think, would be used more as a poor-mans scope format. Productions that want to shoot 1.66, 1.78 or 1.85 will either be on 3p, 4p or S16. The 'prestige' of shooting 35mm or reasonable cost of shooting 2p might lure some people shooting 1.78 S16 to Scope 2p, but I think it's mostly for people who would be shooting 3p for 2.35 extraction or people who can't reasonably afford to shoot anamorphic, either due to costs of the equipment, it's weight or the speed of the optics. Just another tool in the box. If anything, you ought to compare the format to Super35 2.35 and regular anamorphic cinematography.

I shot 35mm and did 2K on my thesis film.

Just for a reference (as your camera is not listed), there is a nice Super8 repair reference at Super8wiki, here.

Not a problem. Stephen you're a champ on here and your displays knowledge continually blow me away.

No so Stephen, as David pointed out, we're talking 2-perf. >8) 2p effectively doubles your running time as you're halving the height of the frame, fitting twice as many images on a roll of film (compared to 4p). I believe a 2p, 3p or 4p camera would all cost the same to rent (taking into consideration if it's an old camera or new, from a rental house or an owner).

Ultimately, S16 will be cheaper. For similar run times you'll need the same amount of footage... however a 400' roll of 5218 costs more than a 400' roll of 7218. Not to mention the camera kit may go for less etc....

I am pleased that you recognize that you're only giving an opinion as you have yet to display any actually authoritative knowledge on the subject

It should be 32fps. Some cameras have extra spaces on their speed dials for 29.97 or something else 'custom'. And then there is a blank space on the dial for the set screw that holds the dial on. Some LTR7's have been factory modified to go 54 fps (essentially upgraded to LTR54's). Still others have been modified by 3rd parties to go even higher... which scares the willies out of me.

Wow, I've never seen any more unsubstantiated, ill informed, vapid statements from a forum member outside of a Red conversation. As someone who repairs both ARRIs and Aatons I can say that Aatons are far from fragile. They used an Aaton on March of the Penguins.... in Antarctica You see Aatons in deserts and jungles, on top of mountains, underwater, even on the space shuttle. They are not fragile nor are they badly engineered. In fact, they are one of the best designs out there. The mechanism and co-planar movement is really a beautiful thing. Aaton is developing a 3p/2p camera as there are already many fine 4p cameras out there (why make another?) and they were looking at productions with DI's in mind. Additionally, down the line, you'll be able to purchase a digital back. I've been to the factory, I've seen the prototype and the cad drawings. It'll be one beautiful machine. Additionally, I am capable of making similar statements about ARRI cameras. I know, because I've used them both extensively and repaired them both... seen their insides. They're both magnificent tools and to disparage the work of Jean-Pierre Beauviala and his engineers just shows a lack of sophistication or knowledge of cameras and engineering. What vituperative nonsense, James. What absolutely shameful nonsense.

One of Aaton's design goals it to make it cheaper than the current 35-III. So, more than an Xtera, less than a 35-III... which gives them a nice tidy range of between $50K and $100K. I believe we'll see a product in the first quarter of next year. But don;t make solid plans on it, you can see what happened when Jannard an Co finished their prototype than tried to get it manufactured to their standards. You're absolutly correct about image quality. There is only a marginal difference between negative area on 2P-2.35 and 3P-2.35.

It would have to be Leica R as it's flange is 47mm, which fits nicely on top of an Aaton mount (40mm). Leica M is 28.8mm making an adapter difficult if not impossible to construct as it's flange is 11.2mm deeper than the mount it would be adapting.

The manual recommends a 14-15 frame loop, which is 15-16 perfs. Many AC's will understand this is a 14-15 perf loop, but they actually mean whole frames.

David, I've got nothing but nice things to say about the people at Postworks. While you're in the area, swing by Abel and say hi to Mitch and I. - nathan

I love the Cowboy bebop soundtrack. Yoko Kanno really is a genius.